2006 PLP 1628 (CLC)

MUZAFFAR ALI, J.

The present respondent filed Civil Suit No.47 of 1998 against the appellants/defendants for recovery of Rs.31,300 with the contention that he was appointed Chowkidar by the defendants/petitioners at N.A. P.W.D. Rest House in Daskharim Astore, but his salary from 15th November, 1996 to 31st March, 1997 and 5th November, 1997 to 31st March, 1998, remained unpaid as such, total amount of Rs.31,300 is outstanding against petitioners/defendants, but petitioners/defendants are not intending to pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff, hence suit. Defendants/petitioners denied the contention of the respondent/ plaintiff by filing the written statement and contested the case. The learned Civil Judge passed ex parte decree on 30-8-1999, in favour of plaintiff against the defendants and also refused application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 25-8-2000, and the petitioners/ defendants went to appeal against the impugned order, dated 25-8-2000, before the District Judge, Diamer. The appeal was also dismissed for default on 26-8-2002. So the present petitioners/defendants filed an application for re-admission of appeal on 14-9-2002, but the learned District Judge refused to re-admit the appeal on the ground that the application had been filed against the plaintiff Ghulam Raza, who was reported to be died two years prior. Being aggrieved from the impugned order, dated 25-8-2000, the present petitioners filed the revision before this Court. I heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 'Admittedly the-plaintiff/respondent was died long before filing of the application, but the petitioners filed the same in the name of Ghulam Raza arraying him respondent and it is an error on the fact of it but, the question arises, if the error is curable or not, I am of the view that, the error is curable as the Courts of law have ample power to allow amendments in the pleadings, including the ' miscellaneous applications even suo motu or on request by the parties, therefore, it would be better way for the learned Additional District Judge, if he had given a chance to the petitioners to implead the legal heirs of the plaintiff Ghulam Raza rather to take serious action by rejecting the application. Courts of law should always be conscious of the fact, that the very establishment of the Courts and the formation of rules, regulations, as well as procedural and substantive laws are meant to address the B grievances of people and do not mean to create hurdles and impediments in the way of justice, and Court should differentiate between curable and uncurable technicalities and always should avoid technicalities to the possible extent and matters should be decided on merit. The upshot of above discussion is that the impugned order is set aside by accepting this revision, and the petitioners are allowed to implead legal heirs of Ghulam Raza (plaintiff) and the learned Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of the application on its merits, but the petitioners are to pay cost of Rs.5;000 to the respondents. The amended application be present before Additional District Court on 18-5-2005. Case is remanded back to the Court of Additional District Judge, Astore. No order as to cost. S.M.B./112/P Petition allowed.